Russia appears poised to reject a U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal that Ukraine has already accepted during negotiations in Jeddah this week, setting the stage for a diplomatic confrontation between Washington and Moscow.
After nearly two days of silence, Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov dismissed the ceasefire proposal on March 13, calling it merely a "respite for the Ukrainian military." He indicated that Russian President Vladimir Putin would provide an official response later in the day.
Following weeks of intense negotiations—including a widely publicized Oval Office standoff—Ukrainian and U.S. officials reached an agreement on a ceasefire proposal in Saudi Arabia on March 11. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized Kyiv’s willingness to proceed, stating, "The ball is in (Russia’s) court." He added that if the Kremlin rejected the proposal, "then we'll unfortunately know what the real obstacle to peace is."
A source in the Ukrainian President’s Office told the Kyiv Independent that officials are "awaiting Putin’s response," adding that if the Russian leader rejects the U.S.-backed proposal, it will become "a question for the Americans" to address.
Kyiv officials were unsurprised by Moscow’s likely refusal.
"Putin has no genuine interest in peace or a true ceasefire," said Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee. "However, he is wary of (U.S. President Donald) Trump. He will likely attempt to frame his response to Trump’s proposal as a conditional agreement but with unacceptable terms."
Western analysts share the expectation that Putin will not abandon the maximalist demands he set forth at the onset of his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
"Putin has not budged an inch from his initial demands, which include the full control of four eastern Ukrainian oblasts and Ukraine’s neutralization," said General Sir Richard Shirreff, former deputy supreme allied commander of NATO in Europe.
"That means no NATO membership, the demilitarization of Ukraine, and the so-called 'denazification'—by which he really means installing a puppet government."
Russia is expected to insist on Ukraine’s withdrawal from the four regions it illegally annexed in 2022—Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk—despite not fully controlling them.
The trajectory of any peace process now hinges on Trump’s response.
The U.S. has considerably less leverage than it did a few weeks ago. The Trump administration has ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and signaled that Kyiv must be ready to cede some territory.
Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia and professor of international studies at Stanford University, criticized this strategy, calling it "giving away all your strongest cards before negotiations even begin."
"It’s an incredibly poor negotiation strategy for the Trump team," he told the Kyiv Independent.
While Ukraine has accepted that NATO membership will not materialize in time to impact current talks, the issue of territorial concessions remains contentious.
Although Kyiv may be pressured into accepting some concessions, it has categorically rejected a complete withdrawal from all four contested oblasts. Putin, however, insists that such a withdrawal is a prerequisite for negotiations.
These conflicting positions mean Trump will be forced to intervene and mediate. However, his course of action—and the extent of his pressure on either side—remains uncertain.
"Trump must take decisive action, or he risks appearing weak," Shirreff said.
For now, the U.S.'s strongest leverage remains economic sanctions, which Trump has already threatened to impose on Russia if they reject the ceasefire proposal.
John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, noted that this places Trump in a difficult position.
"If he suddenly makes additional demands on Ukraine to appease Russia, he risks looking like Putin’s puppet," Herbst said.
However, there is always the possibility that Trump could attempt to enforce Putin’s demands on Ukraine—an outcome Shirreff warned could have severe global consequences.
"If the international community accepts that outcome, it would mark the final collapse of the rules-based global order," he said. "It would signal that brute force prevails, and that Putin has achieved his objectives through sheer aggression."
Comments
Post a Comment